Adding a silencer, kinda mysterious?

I know there's a ton of misinformation out there about the evil silencers and only James Bond and/or ninjas use them, but I could use some info.

I would like to take a Para Ordnance 1911 (.45 acp), put a silencer and flashlight/laser on it and make it my primary HD weapon.

My reasoning is this: The .45 acp is plenty of round for most 2 legged and 4 legged critters (minus volumes of debate on vs. rounds), the sub-sonic round is easier on the ears, the silencer makes it WAY easier on the ears, and the wife, or anybody else really, is more likely to grab a pistol if potentially needed than the really heavy 870.

I'd like to get Advanced Armament's Ti-RANT http://www.advanced-armament.com/product.aspx?pid=647 but they're not really open about a crash course tutorial (probably a good idea). All of the tools and dies and what not are there on the website. I was just wondering if adding a silencer is as easy as threading the barrel and screwing in the silencer, or if there's more to it than that.

If I end up getting it, I'm a bit leery about swapping barrels, as Para's stuff seems to work awesome as is.

If you enjoyed reading about "Adding a silencer, kinda mysterious?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

Sam1911

May 14, 2012, 12:39 PM

There should be lots of good info on line about adding a silencer to a 1911. It sure isn't the simplest thing to do.

I don't know of any way to do it with the factory barrel (too short) and because of the locking mechanism you'll need to use a Nielson device or it won't cycle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_booster

RhinoDefense

May 14, 2012, 12:40 PM

Buy a threaded barrel for your weapon. Screw the suppressor on your barrel. Be sure to test fire with ammunition and make sure your weapon remains reliable with the suppressor.

Swapping barrels for your weapon is not difficult. There won't be enough material sticking out of the slide for your stock OEM barrel to be threaded. You'll need an aftermarket threaded barrel.

CoRoMo

May 14, 2012, 12:42 PM

You'll need a new barrel.

Because, you'll need a half inch or so of barrel protruding out beyond the bushing.

I wouldn't use any NFA weapon (including a suppressed weapon) for home defense. In case of a shooting, this would look terrible in front of a jury. They would think it was overkill, or that you were looking for trouble.

If you have to shoot in a HD situation, blast and sound are your friends. They enhance the intimidating effect of the weapon. In addition, an attached suppressor might have an adverse effect on the reliability of the weapon (unless this is set up exactly right). The added length of a suppressor also would make a handgun more unwieldy in tight quarters.

Rail Driver

May 14, 2012, 04:08 PM

I wouldn't use any NFA weapon (including a suppressed weapon) for home defense. In case of a shooting, this would look terrible in front of a jury. They would think it was overkill, or that you were looking for trouble.

If you have to shoot in a HD situation, blast and sound are your friends. They enhance the intimidating effect of the weapon. In addition, an attached suppressor might have an adverse effect on the reliability of the weapon (unless this is set up exactly right). The added length of a suppressor also would make a handgun more unwieldy in tight quarters.

This is not good advice. Muzzle blast in an enclosed environment such as a house or hallway WILL damage your hearing permanently. A suppressor is a safety device for the shooter, nothing more. Your assumption of what a jury might think is nothing more than conjecture. If the added length of a suppressor would make a handgun so much more unwieldy to handle then how do so many people successfully defend themselves in their homes using rifles and shotguns with long barrels and stocks?

Do you have any case law you can cite that proves your opinion?

jerkface11

May 14, 2012, 05:33 PM

Do you have any case law you can cite that proves your opinion?

Probably a hack argument from a 20 year old gun rag.

Telekinesis

May 14, 2012, 06:25 PM

Just a note... sorry this is so long. Quotes and data formatting took up more space than I thought they would.

Do you have any case law you can cite that proves your opinion?

Just to play devil's advocate... if you are convicted of a crime while possessing or using a silencer/suppressor, there is a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years.

Whoever, during and in relation to any crime
of violence or drug trafficking crime (including
a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime
which provides for enhanced punishment if
committed by the use of a deadly weapon or device)
for which he may be prosecuted in a court
of the United States, uses or carries a firearm,
shall, in addition to the punishment provided for
such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime,
be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and
if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled
shotgun to imprisonment for ten years, and
if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive
device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or
firearm muffler, to imprisonment for thirty years
(emphasis added) (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)).

Here's a law journal with some commentary and case law:
http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/44.clark/clark.pdf

Personally, I think its a good idea to use a suppressor for HD. Not only do you save your hearing, you save the hearing of your family and improve your situational awareness. Nothing like 160dB gun shots in a hallway to distract you from the guy coming around behind you.

Overall length shouldn't be much of an issue, though adding 7+ inches to the end of your gun does make it a bit harder to handle. If an unsuppressed pistol at full extension is roughly the same distance away from you as the barrel of a 16" rifle, adding a suppressor to the pistol would be the same as adding a suppressor to that rifle as well. It will make it a bit more difficult to handle, but its up to you to decide if the benefits outweigh the costs.

A possible solution could be a micro suppressor which is only around 4" or so, but most of those use wipes, so you can only get a mag or two out of them before you have to take the suppressor apart and replace the wipes. You could still shoot through it with shot out wipes, it just wouldn't really be hearing safe.

OP: As stated earlier, to attach a suppressor to a pistol (or anything) you need a threaded barrel. On a pistol, that will usually extend about half an inch past the end of the slide. Make sure that you order the right thread pitch for your suppressor. (For example, I'm purchasing a suppressor from a friend with a thread pitch of 1/2x28, and I'm having a very difficult time finding a 9mm barrel for a Sig 228 threaded in 1/2x28, most are in 13.5x1 LH)

As far as type of weapon to suppress, I would personally go with a 9mm. 147gr 9mm is subsonic like a 230gr .45, but the 9mm has a smaller diameter hole at the end of the suppressor for gasses to exit which means more gas is trapped in the suppressor making it quieter.

Here are some metering levels of suppressors. I don't have TiRant 45 data, so I'll compare the Osprey45 to the Osprey9 which should give us similar data to a TiRant45 vs 9 comparison.

Unsuppressed pistols are typically around 160dB (+/- 3dB or so)
Hearing safe levels are generally set at 140dB

Note: Info is from NFAtalk.org. I would recommend signing up there if you're really interested in purchasing a suppressor. The owner of the site posts his own suppressor test dB ratings at no cost (and yes, they're taken with professional equipment).

Alright, given everything you guys have said, seems like dropping a few extra bills on a H&K USP that COMES with silencer threads is a better idea. I still like the idea of a full length barrel .45 acp, rather than a sub sonic 9mm though.

neviander

May 14, 2012, 10:07 PM

Wow, this is perfect. Now all I need is 3 thousand dollars :D

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=285070393

It's an HK mark 23 with a TiRANT. Another gunbroker fantasy...

MrM4

May 15, 2012, 01:10 AM

Maybe look at a Sig TacOps with a Osprey from Silencerco.

RhinoDefense

May 15, 2012, 02:03 AM

I still like the idea of a full length barrel .45 acp, rather than a sub sonic 9mm though.
Depends what you want. If you want quiet centerfire pistol, 9mm beats .45 hands down.

Cosmoline

May 15, 2012, 02:50 AM

Usually I'm skeptical of internet rumors about what is or isn't kosher, but in this case I'd have to agree that any Class III or DD is a no-no for self defense under any scenarios this side of a North Korean paratroop attack.

Aside from the dramatically enhanced federal penalties involved, the use of something that exotic will almost guarantee enhanced police scrutiny. It's odd. Very odd. And you don't want anything odd. Odd is bad.

I think silencers are a great idea for helping to quiet down the noise of small game control around a city or to protect hearing from those shooting a large amount, but if you're having to shoot and possibly kill someone the potential loss of a few decibels of hearing are pretty low down the list.

General Geoff

May 15, 2012, 03:36 AM

As long as logic can be laid out in a court of law, I don't see any reason not to use a silencer for home defense. The prosecution can scream till they're blue in the face about how you wanted to assassinate your victim without waking the neighbors, etc... but if you called the police to report your own self defense shooting, none of it holds water. And the facts are quite plain and unarguable that unsilenced firearms permanently damage one's hearing, especially when fired indoors. So the silencer is quite literally a safety device and nothing else.

I know, I know, this all hinges on the jury being fair and logically minded. Then again, if the DA was logically minded, it would never see a court room in the first place.

jmorris

May 15, 2012, 08:15 AM

As long as logic can be laid out in a court of law, OJ was acquitted of murder then lost $33.5 million in a wrongful death suit of one of the murder victims....not sure logic factors into the equation.

jerkface11

May 15, 2012, 09:53 AM

Silencers thread on. The police won't get there for 10 minutes or so. I'm sure you can figure out what to do.

Greg528iT

May 15, 2012, 10:04 AM

Silencers thread on. The police won't get there for 10 minutes or so. I'm sure you can figure out what to do.

Ummmm DON'T tamper with evidence. If you've shot someone in self defense and then you adjust / tamper with anything you will be looking a great deal of scrutiny.

jmorris

May 15, 2012, 10:05 AM

That is likely the worst thing you could do. Altering evidence is never a good idea and a great way to make you a criminal.

CoRoMo

May 15, 2012, 10:23 AM

...if you're having to shoot and possibly kill someone the potential loss of a few decibels of hearing are pretty low down the list.
I don't think that's the issue. While hearing loss is one concern, the greater concern IMO is the loss of whatever equanimity you may have had once the first concussive blast occurs. If you miss that first shot or if you're dealing with multiple intruders, you may be crippled from the deafening and blinding gun shot, unable to effectively continue the defense. Especially with a multi-intruder scenario, if you blast one of them, the first one that you encounter, but another one or two are located outside the room where you set off the first round, you'd be somewhat incapacitated compared to them. They wouldn't have been as affected from the flash or bang.

Also, if you're firing a round in your 'safe room', and other family members are located there, you could also be putting them beyond the ability to defend themselves if you are killed or injured in that moment. If you fire off a .357 mag in your safe room and are then hit with a club/bat or stabbed and not able to continue the defense, your full volume gun shot can hinder other family member's ability to do anything thereafter.

This is the primary concern in such an event versus simple/eventual hearing loss. I think a suppressed defense weapon is almost a must due to this advantage.
OJ was acquitted of murder...
He never claimed self defense and therefore had no ability to its civil immunity possibilities.

:)

Cosmoline

May 15, 2012, 01:00 PM

The prosecution can scream till they're blue in the face about how you wanted to assassinate your victim without waking the neighbors, etc... but if you called the police to report your own self defense shooting, none of it holds water.

It isn't so much the DA I'd be worried about. It's the responding officers. Silencers are unusual. Doubly so on a home defense firearm. So it's going to be a red flag. For better or worse people associate them with assassination.

you may be crippled from the deafening and blinding gun shot

I'm not sure why that would be. For one thing you shouldn't be shooting in pitch black, unable to see what you're aiming at. Second, the noise isn't sufficient to stun you. It's just noise. I've capped off a .357 from a snub in a small room in my one and only ND. I don't want to repeat the experience, but the noise itself had no impact other than making my ears ring afterwards. In a weird way I didn't even notice it, it was so loud. Remember people have fought whole wars without any hearing protection at all and done just fine. Other than losing hearing later, that is. And it gets easier after the first round, not harder.

In an ideal world it would be great if we could have silencers on firearms we use for CCW or home defense, but this isn't an ideal world. Silencers for most people in the US are James Bond tools. So the question will be--why did this guy have a silencer? Was he setting this whole confrontation up? Was this really self defense?

CoRoMo

May 15, 2012, 01:47 PM

Indoor gun blasts can be devastating to the senses. Maybe not for everyone. Eye of the beholder. Little to debate. :)
So the question will be--why did this guy have a silencer? Was he setting this whole confrontation up? Was this really self defense?
IMHO, these questions don't fly. Answered in order; (1)Safety. (2)No. (3)Please see the results of the police investigation.

I don't see how a suppressor on a HD weapon is any different than Tritium night sights, a weapon light, or a laser sight. All of them assist in the effective indoor and low light use found in HD.

Now, I surely wouldn't put it past any DA to make hay of any tiny concept ever. But if we add any of these accessories to a HD weapon, any DA could look at the Tritium sights, the 30-round magazine, the laser, .50 caliber Desert Eagle and say, "why did this guy have Tritium sights? Was he setting this whole confrontation up? Was this really self defense?"

Why did this guy have a silencer?

If this question can't be effectively answered by your defense attorney, you need a new attorney.

Was he setting this whole confrontation up?

Yes. I made sure that the prowler found us holding up in our safe room so that I could shoot him with my suppressed SBR as he kicked its door down. (I use absurdity to point out absurdity, no offense :))

In all seriousness, I get it.

A prosecutor can jump to any conclusion.
A police investigator can do the same.
Some places in this country are very different than others in regards to popular opinion and ideology.
HD scenarios are not static environments where everything is cut and dry.

But regardless, I don't see how a legally owned and operated silencer adds any more nefariousness to a HD shooting than hollow points, high cap mags, night sights, large calibers, tac lights, handloads, advanced training, etc.

:)

Good form of thread drift IMO. Hope the OP doesn't mind.

SilentStalker

May 15, 2012, 01:48 PM

Well, my opinion of it is like this, if it was indeed used for self defense in your house then you just simply say that was the closest loaded weapon within reach. Who are they to argue? There you have it, problem solved.

CoRoMo

May 15, 2012, 02:04 PM

...simply say that was the closest loaded weapon within reach.
Here's a different angle...

IOW, I've designed and built certain, individual weapons to do nothing else but to be ready for a low light encounter, indoors, for HD. I've trained and retrained with these guns so that I know how to operate them effectively.

Scary. :eek:

It sounds like I'm preparing for combat.

But I'm not.

I'm just doing what I can to protect my family. Why should I HAVE to do this preparation and the eventual act without the aid of good sights, good ammo, or a suppressor?

My wife's revolver has a laser sight because she doesn't really get out and practice enough to shoot too instinctively well. But lasers are used in Star Wars. So maybe she's part of The Empire. :D

zignal_zero

May 15, 2012, 02:35 PM

glad someonelse pointed out that 9mm is QUIETER. a lot of people think that because 45 is subsonic that it is easy to suppress. as far as i know - the 45's powder charge creates a much greater blast and is more work to tame.

as for O.J., i heard that he never paid up. they simply had a judgment against him, he never actually paid it. therefore, it didn't really COST him much.

Telekinesis

May 15, 2012, 06:08 PM

but if you're having to shoot and possibly kill someone the potential loss of a few decibels of hearing are pretty low down the list.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm a musician and a sound engineer. If I loose enough hearing, I'm out of a job. There's already enough loss of hearing associated with these fields that I am incredibly protective of my hearing when I can be, so why wouldn't I try to limit my exposure in a SD incident if possible? I can't just write off a few decibels of hearing.

Second, the noise isn't sufficient to stun you. It's just noise.

Flash bangs are only 5-10 dB louder than a 9mm, and I doubt you'll find anyone saying that a flashbang is just noise.

glad someonelse pointed out that 9mm is QUIETER. a lot of people think that because 45 is subsonic that it is easy to suppress. as far as i know - the 45's powder charge creates a much greater blast and is more work to tame.

Whats really funny about this is that I can take a $300, 4" 9mm suppressor and be QUIETER for the first 10-15 rounds than that $850, 7.5" Osprey45. The current generation of the Osprey45 and TiRant45 were the first to be able to claim they were hearing safe while dry, and we've had dry/hearing safe 9mm cans for years. Hell, some of these newer 9mm cans are approaching suppressed .22 sound levels when wet. But people never listen to the guy with actual dB ratings, they just wanna look cool with their .45 can... :rolleyes:

neviander

May 15, 2012, 08:16 PM

Excellent thread drift, more like thread branching.

I tend to agree with CoMoRo on the legal argument.

If the 9mm really is quieter than the .45 out of a silencer, I'd be happy to switch my preference to the 9. Would the rounds have to be sub-sonic 9s though? or does the super sonic factor have a negligible effect when the silencer is involved?

Telekinesis

May 15, 2012, 08:33 PM

Its not technically off topic as we're correcting the assumption that a .45 is the quietest weapon to suppress and you also mentioned the possibility of SD uses of a suppressed weapon, so that allows us to talk about all SD implications of suppressed weapons (like legalities) ;)

If the 9mm really is quieter than the .45 out of a silencer, I'd be happy to switch my preference to the 9. Would the rounds have to be sub-sonic 9s though? or does the super sonic factor have a negligible effect when the silencer is involved?

The rounds will have to be subsonic as a supersonic round still breaks the sound barrier and has the sonic boom to prove it. It sounds more like a .22lr unsuppressed. The vast majority of 9mm 147gr loads are subsonic though. I believe all of the major defensive ammo manufacturers make 147gr rounds that are about 900-1000fps (speed of sound is a tad bit over 1100fps) and it should be pretty easy to find 147gr and 158gr fmj for practice.

neviander

May 16, 2012, 08:30 AM

It sounds more like a .22lr unsuppressed.
a pistol, or a rifle? I suppose they're similar, depending on the ammo used.

Again though, I regress back to the big/heavy/slow .45 vs. the light/fast 9mm. I always thought the advantage in the 9mm was it's speed, if heavier (but still not near as heavy) bullets are being used to intentionally slow it down for the silencer, that sort of negates the advantage.

PedalBiker

May 16, 2012, 09:40 AM

a pistol, or a rifle? I suppose they're similar, depending on the ammo used.

No they're not. A 22 pistol is significantly louder. So it's a good question.

The 147g 9mm is still rather "big" given that even a .338 rifle is considered on the large size. The older results with 147g 9mm was poor due to lack of expansion. If a 147g 9mm opens up it's around .6" and has enough sectional density to penetrate well. Also, 147g 9mm rounds are almost as fast as 185g 45 rounds and significantly faster than a 230g 45, so the speed advantage still holds, even if it is diminished.

My wife doesn't particularly like 38sp or 9mm but she does OK with them. I haven't asked her to try the .45 yet. Give her a .22 and she'll shoot all day.

I have electronic muffs in the bedroom, one set for each of us. I have hearing damage already, so the muffs are two fold, one to be able to hear better right off the bat and two to be able to hear after any potential shooting. The bulk of my hearing problems stem from two particular incidents where my hearing protection failed or was inadequate. I disagree that it's OK to plan on losing the rest of my hearing if I get faced wtih a HD scenario.

In fact, supressor laws in our country are basically criminal negligence. We know guns damage hearing, we know we can easily reduce this damage and yet we make it insanely difficult to do so. If your gun makes 130dB -140dB it will still be sufficiently loud to alert the neighbors to the trouble going on and you'll still need muffs. My 23dB muffs are not enough to prevent hearing damage.

Prince Yamato

May 16, 2012, 10:02 AM

9mm is quieter than 45 suppressed. The reason being that 45 requires a larger exit hole in the can, hence more gasses escape. In a side by side comparison, I would say 9mm is distinctly quieter.

Telekinesis

May 16, 2012, 02:07 PM

a pistol, or a rifle? I suppose they're similar, depending on the ammo used.
I would probably say its closer to a rifle. Maybe a bit quieter than either, but its a sound level most here are familiar with. I guess a better characterization of the sound would be the crack of a bullwhip?

Again though, I regress back to the big/heavy/slow .45 vs. the light/fast 9mm. I always thought the advantage in the 9mm was it's speed, if heavier (but still not near as heavy) bullets are being used to intentionally slow it down for the silencer, that sort of negates the advantage.

The heavy bullets aren't necessarily being used to slow it down just for suppressed use. The FBI lists quite a few 147gr (standard pressure) 9mm loads as passing their testing in regards to penetration and expansion, and those loads are typically the same loads issued to LE in departments that issue/allow the use of 9mm handguns. IIRC the FBI only lists 147gr and 124gr +P as acceptable rounds, there's nothing in the 115gr or 124 standard pressure range.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that 147gr 9mm rounds are proven performers regardless of anything you have connected to the gun. It just happens that they're subsonic which makes them attractive for use with a suppressor.

JustinJ

May 16, 2012, 04:45 PM

There is no telling what a prosecutor may try to make issue with but a silencer seems like a likely target. The big concern for me in deciding wether or not to have a silencer on my hd weapon is mandatory minimum sentences when used during the comission of a crime. So its not so much that the silencer will make one easier to convict but if found guilty one could be looking at a much stiffer sentence than otherwise would have. No such issue exists with night sights or lasers. If TX did not have Castle Doctrine and other certain laws that protect home owners who use a weapon for defense i wouldn't even consider it.

zignal_zero

May 16, 2012, 05:32 PM

If TX did not have Castle Doctrine and other certain laws that protect home owners who use a weapon for defense i wouldn't even consider it.

Really? I'm just the opposite - I would use whatever I had to to defend myself and my family, in my home, no matter what the law said. I do not recognize any entity as having the authority to tell me how I will defend my own home.

W.E.G.

May 16, 2012, 06:17 PM

Sure, suppressors are cool.

For indoor shooting, how about skip the whole suppressor ordeal, and just keep a pair of amplified ear-muffs near the gun?

The amplified muffs are way cheaper than a suppressor, they take up minimal space, they can cross state lines without written federal permission, they don't interest juries or newspaper reporters, and don't get nearly as hot as a suppressor when shooting drills.

Sam1911

May 16, 2012, 06:19 PM

they can cross state lines without written federal permission
So can silencers/suppressors. They are exempt from the Form 5320.20 notification requirement.

thorazine

May 16, 2012, 06:21 PM

Silencers thread on. The police won't get there for 10 minutes or so. I'm sure you can figure out what to do.

I second this idea. =D

But I am a trouble maker heh.

Telekinesis

May 16, 2012, 06:28 PM

For indoor shooting, how about skip the whole suppressor ordeal, and just keep a pair of amplified ear-muffs near the gun?

Ear pro only protects you, not your wife or kids who may or may not even be aware that there is a problem when the shooting starts. The shooter isn't the only one who can sustain hearing damage in a SD incident.

SharpsDressedMan

May 16, 2012, 06:53 PM

You could easily go $2000 for a good set up. Possibly your cheapest would be a stock Glock 21, a Lone Wolf extended/threaded barrel, and the suppressor of your choice. Gun and LW barrel might be had for $750, and your suppressor for $650-$750, plus $200 transfer tax.

MIgunguy

May 17, 2012, 11:50 AM

38 responses and no mention of auditory shutdown in an SD situation? :what:

Telekinesis

May 17, 2012, 12:04 PM

38 responses and no mention of auditory shutdown in an SD situation?

Auditory exclusion only affects your cognizance of the sound, not the damage it causes to your hearing. Its kind of like tunnel vision for hearing, both are caused by adrenalin. The problem is that the effects will not be as evident over time as you get better at controlling your adrenalin.

Ever get into a fist fight? A lot of times you will be so focused on your opponent that you won't even notice or hear other people in the room. Now, take a few years of hand to hand combat classes and then try it again. You will be calm, relaxed, and you will have much better situational awareness and will notice not only little things like your opponent's weight shifts, but also things like positioning within the room and other people who also may become involved. You have essentially eliminated the effects of tunnel vision based on your experience and controlling your adrenalin. The same thing can happen with auditory exclusion.

And even if you do experience auditory exclusion, there is no guarantee that others in your home will experience the same effect. You don't have to be the one firing the gun to experience hearing damage, you just have to be present (think of your wife or kids who are in the house).

Prince Yamato

May 17, 2012, 12:25 PM

You know what really works against you using a suppressor in a SD scenario? Other gun owners treating you like a social pariah. How about this:

There is no moral issue with using a suppressor in a SD scenario. There is no legal prohibition against using one in a SD scenario. There is no prohibition owing to tradition of using suppressors in a SD scenario.

ergo, you can use a suppressor in a self-defense scenario. Pre-meditation will not be in issue if it's someone breaking into your house.

You can all keep your imagined hypotheses, I will keep my hearing.

gandog56

May 17, 2012, 03:09 PM

But lasers are used in Star Wars. So maybe she's part of The Empire.

You mean all this time I thought I was a Jedi space ninja because I have a set of laser sights on my SIG, I wasn't?:what:

neviander

May 17, 2012, 07:55 PM

ergo, you can use a suppressor in a self-defense scenario. Pre-meditation will not be in issue if it's someone breaking into your house.
Before I started this thread, I honestly did not even consider any sort of legal ramifications for shooting a home intruder. It being brought up was really interesting, but has not dissuaded me from getting a silencer set up.

I'm still ambivalent about either a .45 or a 9 though. My favorite, no silencer around, pistol cartridge is the 10mm, just above the .45, and is my carry caliber. Stepping down to the 9 feels uncomfortable for an HD situation, I appreciate the info about the 9 being quieter though, in all my travels on THR I never noticed that.

Bamajohn

May 17, 2012, 09:12 PM

Buy a good pair of amplified hearing protecors.

BK

May 17, 2012, 09:16 PM

And hope that the bad guys are obliging and give you enough time to put on your hearing protection before the show starts.

jmorris

May 18, 2012, 09:06 AM

9mm is quieter than 45 suppressed. The reason being that 45 requires a larger exit hole in the can, hence more gasses escape. In a side by side comparison, I would say 9mm is distinctly quieter. you can't make a blanket statement like that. There is a lot more factors involved that just the diameter of the hole in the endcap. I have a 458socom can that makes less noise than an AAC EVO 9.

JustinJ

May 18, 2012, 09:16 AM

Quote:
If TX did not have Castle Doctrine and other certain laws that protect home owners who use a weapon for defense i wouldn't even consider it.

Really? I'm just the opposite - I would use whatever I had to to defend myself and my family, in my home, no matter what the law said.

I would use whatever i had also. Unless all you have is an integrally supressed firearm how would that ever be one's only option for home defense?

I do not recognize any entity as having the authority to tell me how I will defend my own home.

Unless you have an illegal subgun hidden under the bed for bad guys i doubt that to be true. Wether or not your recognize the authority that exists it can and will exert control over you.

There is no moral issue with using a suppressor in a SD scenario. There is no legal prohibition against using one in a SD scenario. There is no prohibition owing to tradition of using suppressors in a SD scenario.

ergo, you can use a suppressor in a self-defense scenario. Pre-meditation will not be in issue if it's someone breaking into your house.

I realize silencers are not prohibited for use in self defense however if the law disagrees with one's claim of self defense the penalties could suddenly become significantly more severe. I'm not arguing against their use but this should certainly be considered.

Ironman

May 19, 2012, 02:58 PM

I can't think of a better thread to show you this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2GchQ3orB0&sns=em

Sent from my iPhone

hentown

May 19, 2012, 10:01 PM

I wouldn't use any NFA weapon (including a suppressed weapon) for home defense. In case of a shooting, this would look terrible in front of a jury. They would think it was overkill, or that you were looking for trouble.

If you have to shoot in a HD situation, blast and sound are your friends. They enhance the intimidating effect of the weapon. In addition, an attached suppressor might have an adverse effect on the reliability of the weapon (unless this is set up exactly right). The added length of a suppressor also would make a handgun more unwieldy in tight quarters.

Truly absurd, informed advice. :confused:

MachIVshooter

May 20, 2012, 05:38 PM

And hope that the bad guys are obliging and give you enough time to put on your hearing protection before the show starts.

The average HD situation is not waking up to an armed assailant standing over you in bed. In point of fact, many, many people have had time to retrieve a weapon from another room and mount an effective defense. I'm not suggesting time isn't of the essence, but in reality, you would probably have more than enough time to put muffs on.

Me? If I ever do get finally pony up for a supressor, I'd have no qualms about using it for HD. That said, my HD handgun is a 10mm, and I have no intention of handicapping it's effectiveness with subsonic ammo, so it'd still be quite loud even with a supressor. I do keep muffs handy.

CoRoMo

May 21, 2012, 10:34 AM

I have suppressed weapons, but my nightstand pistol is not -yet- one of them. I keep planning on buying a pair of Combat Arms Ear Plugs (http://www.cabelas.com/product/Combat-Arms-Ear-Plugs/735177.uts?Ntk=AllProducts&searchPath=/catalog/search.cmd?form_state%3DsearchForm%26N%3D0%26fsch%3Dtrue%26Ntk%3DAllProducts%26Ntt%3Dcombat%2Barms%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26WTz_l%3DHeader%253BSearch-All%2BProducts&Ntt=combat+arms&WTz_l=Header%3bSearch-All+Products) to set in the nightstand with that pistol. I think they are probably easier (one handed) and quicker to install than a set of muffs which would require two hands.

But I really wonder if I would even have the presence of mind to grab them if I'm seriously pulling that gun out to protect my family. I have to assume that I'll fail to do everything right in a situation like that.

So I'd much prefer to have every HD weapon already suppressed, just to remove that variable of the equation.

SharpsDressedMan

May 21, 2012, 02:52 PM

If you have a suppressed weapon at hand, it just makes common sense to mai it the one you use indoors. That is one of the things suppressors are designed to do; make shooting indoors more efficient. Of course, common sense isn't all that common sometimes.

Ironman

May 22, 2012, 07:50 AM

Look at all the hate I get on the video I posted on page 2. Most gun owners are uninformed and bash those that use suppressors for HD. It's a tool to improve your odds and nothing more. Think of it as the tac light we use on our guns to ID a target at night.

I don't think it's that impressive but maybe because it took me 4 years to get to where it is. I wish I had bought a machine gun first an then suppressors as MG prices have increased rapidly in the past year. Sucks.

I just bought another 45 can. A AAC tirant45 and a MK23 duo. I should get it by 2013 lol. You have a couple of cans dont ya?

Leadbutt

May 22, 2012, 01:02 PM

IF your worried about gun blast, use a set of electronic muffs while doing your search thorough the house, any family should be in a safe room while you do your thing

If you worried about being surprised by a home invasion then look to beefing up your home security needs.

I have been in Federal and State courts over shootings , and you DON"T WANT TO BE THAT GUY!! If at all possible,

zignal_zero

May 26, 2012, 07:59 PM

JustinJ-

I think you are misunderstanding my statement. The original person I quoted (might've been you, I don't recall) said they would "not even consider" using DF to protect themselves or their family in the absence of a "castle doctrine" (or atleast that's how I took it) and I am saying I am the exact opposite - I will do whatever I feel I have to with whatever I feel I need to in order to defend my family without a shred of concern for what the law says. Furthermore, anybody who's more concerned with remaining legal than protecting their family....... well, u know :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Adding a silencer, kinda mysterious?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!